User talk:FallenAngelII

Welcome!

Hello, FallenAngelII, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Invader Zim

If you want to discuss what to include or not include on a page, the proper place to do so is on the article's talk page...Talk:Invader Zim in this case. You can get to the talk page by clicking the "discussion" tab at the top left of the article page. If you want to leave a message for an individual editor, use their talk page, which you can get to by clicking "talk" next to their name on any edit they've made. Although your edit was successful in getting a response, please do not add messages to articles. It is considered vandalism.

I'm assuming your additions were reverted because they were unsourced. --Onorem 13:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this particular topic, but things added need reliable sources if you want them to remain in articles. I believe you are telling the truth when you say they comment on it on the DVD...but the policy is verifiability, not truth.

I'd suggest starting a topic on the talk page asking if anyone can find a source for the statement. It's possible listing the DVD as a reference is acceptable...I'm no expert on how stuff like that works.

Also, please assume good faith that the people who have reverted your additions are trying to help Wikipedia. Without sources, it's impossible to know whether the information is true or not. If unsourced additions aren't considered common knowledge, they should be removed. --Onorem 11:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision

Hi there, FallenAngelII. Sorry for not having got back to you sooner: I have been somewhat away from the keyboard over the past couple of days. Firstly, you wonder how to talk to people here on Wikipedia: you almost got it right. You left a message on my user page. What you needed to do is leave a message at my talk page. Onorem already moved your message from my user page to the talk page, but I'm just letting you know for future reference.

Right, regarding the changes: you're right about the age rule. It does indeed deserve a mention in the article, and I'm glad to see that you re-added the information. When I reverted your changes, I did not have a lot of time (I was on my way out of the house) and the age rule revert was made in the middle of the reversion of all your other changes. I did mean to re-add that later, but it's good that you already did it. Now, you asked me why I reverted the other things you added. The fact is, Wikipedia articles vary greatly in their quality. The English Wikipedia has over a million articles: some of them are excellent, and some are complete rubbish. If you read the article guides, you will see that the best articles follow quite a strict set of rules. All information given must be encyclopædic, relevant and referenced.

The Eurovision Song Contest article is a Featured Article. That means it has been identified as one of the best articles on the site (fewer than 0.1% of articles attain this status). Criteria for Featured Articles are very strict indeed. One thing which is a big no-no is the addition of so-called "fun trivia". Yes, the information you added is perfectly correct and true. However, it is not encyclopædic to add every little fun tidbit to the article. Information such as no country ever having won from the #2 starting position is true, yes, but it is not relevant in a serious encyclopædia article. Besides, this was not referenced. You would have had to find a credible, reliable source and quote that source within the article! Yes, as a Eurovision fan I know this is true: but non-fans reading the article need to see that the information comes from reliable sources, and has not just been added in jest by vandals.

With regards to the whole France/Sweden thing, this actually WAS mentioned originally: I was the one who wrote about it. That was before I submitted the article as a Featured candidate. I was then advised, by people with more expertise on Featured Articles than I, that this information should be omited.

So - to answer your point. Yes, I appreciate your efforts very much. Thank you for your interest in the Eurovision article :) However, as a newbie you need to learn the guidelines of this encyclopædia. I was new once too! I hope I have answered your questions. If you have anything further to add, please do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page. Thanks. EuroSong ^talk 12:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please refrain from calling people morons, even in the general tone and "invisible" style you did on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. While you are correct that these plot warnings should not be in the article, you should assume good faith because people adding them are actually trying to help.

Added by Lilac Soul 09:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severus Snape

Hi,

I'm currently, as you are probably aware, trying to get things sorted out with another user regarding the meaning of Snape's actions. It would appear that you share the same opinion as me. I would appreciate it if you could make a comment on the discussion page, even if it does disagree with some of mine as any discussion on the topic from other people would be greatly appreciated as it would mean we could come to some resolution.

regards Drivenapart 12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live webchat transcript citation

Hi Fallen AngelII, thanks for going through and adding in all the new information JKR gave this morning on the live webchat. As you'll see at WP:CITET, there are easier ways to standardize citations, instead of just using <ref>http://link.com</ref>. So, if you could use <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/7/30/j-k-rowling-web-chat-transcript|title=J.K. Rowling Web Chat Transcript|date=[[2007-07-30]]|accessdate=2007-07-30|publisher=[[The Leaky Cauldron (website)|The Leaky Cauldron]]}}</ref>, taking care to put the citation after puncutation, that would be great. Thanks again! --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minato Namikaze

He is indeed Naruto's father. They announced it in the latest chapter of the original manga when Tsunade and Jiraiya were talking about Naruto's parents. They also stated that his mother was named Kushina Uzumaki. They also said that when it came to her learning new jutsu, she acted exactly like Naruto. Jiraiya even refered to her as a tom-boy. So stop reverting the page because that is proof enough. And plus in the chapter, it was the first time they refered to him by name. Ryu-chan 18:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've READ 367. Go re-read it. Never once did they say that Minato was his father. It was worded in a strange way and could mean that Naruto resembles three people. Kishimoto DELIBERATELY did this in order to not have to say it outright.

You go re-read it. This is what it said.

Tsunade: Namikaze Minato... The resemblance is undeniable...

Jiraiya: Minato had talent you only see once a decade, at best. He was a genius... No one like him has been born in a while. He was such a nice kid, yet his gut and desire to succeed were the fiercest I'd ever seen. And in a blink of an eye, he was our fourth Hokage. I never had kids, so I don'twhat it was like... But if he'd been my son, I'd have bragged about him all the time.

Tsunade: Haha... Hearing you say that makes me think of how different they are, too. If I had to choose, I'd say he's much more similar to his mother. [1]

[2]

Is that proof enough?

Ryu-chan 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even include the quotes where they say he resembles his father (far later). What THAT quote says is that Naruto resembles Minato. And that Jiraiya deeply respects Minato and woul've loved to have him as a son! Point out where it says they're father and son. Point to that single sentence or sequence of sentences where it's CLEARLY stated that they are. That's right, you can't. because they didn't. Me 21:12, 29 August 2007 (GMT+1)

Is this good enough.

Tsunade: Kushina became so beautiful as she grew up... But Naruto does look a lot like his father.

[3]

I should also note that the whole time, they were talking about Kushina and Minato the whole time. So is this good enough proof? Ryu-chan 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minato

Please do not constantly revert a page based on your own misguided opinion. Yelling constantly and referring to a talk page conversation doesn't justify your edits, which is why they get reverted. There are only two targets of conversation. You have to prove there's some mystery man or some other nonsensical situation which somehow makes your interpretation accurate. The other side has its proof in plain sight. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to disturb you with this, but:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Konoha ninja. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Just a formality. We'd hate to see you get blocked. Cheers, You Can 't Review Me!!! 19:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warring's only going to get you blocked. Stop warring and get back to the discussion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, FallenAngelII. By no means did I intend to discourage your position. You were just about to breach WP:3RR, so I placed that warning on your page. It's just a formality; I placed the same note on Someguy's page for the same reason. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Anyways, I have not seen the scene in question, nor do I have it available for reference. As such, I can't argue any points at all. As it seems, there is already an active discussion on Talk:List of Konoha ninja which you are already taking place in. Just keep it up there rather than edit warring. Regards, You Can 't Review Me!!! 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Problem?

A word advice--

Get it!*chuckels* :)--Angel David 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore vote

Hi. All the arguing over where we should discuss Dumbledore's sexual orientation is proving useless. We need to work out just who is in favour of what and a vote seems the only way to go about it. I'm asking for your opinion since you had a say in the general argument. Thank you. asyndeton 10:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore edit

Hello, i have no idea what i did on the dumbledore page. Seriously. I was going to comment on his age and i hit the space bar on accident somewhere near the top of the page and all of the sudden it became that "filler text" thing. I am not lying, can you please remove the idiot comment as i was in no way trying to be malicious in my actions. Also, could you please explain to my how i made the page revert to another page in the first place. it makes no sense to me.

--130.108.192.211 15:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albus Dumbledore & sexuality sections

Hi FallenAngelII, I'm going to quote something I posted the other day on the Talk:Albus Dumbledore page because you have repeated your assetion without really addressing what I've said here, and as there has been so much activity on that page, I'm guessing you didn't see what I wrote:

It simply is not true that all non-straight characters or real people have separate "sexuality" sections, even when that is a significant factor in the plot or other events of their lives. For a couple examples off the top of my head, see Jean-Claude (bisexual fictional character) and Janis Ian (lesbian musician). I'm sure it is sometimes done, and is appropriate sometimes, but it is certainly not going against accepted Wikipedia practice not to have a separate section on sexuality. I'm not sure it is even true that the majority of GLBT characters and people have separate sexuality sections. Aleta 20:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Aleta 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opal

Opal is a recurring character, so you don't need to mention that she parodies Oprah every time she appears. We don't mention that Rainier Wolfcastle parodies Arnold Schwarzenegger every time he appears. Also, putting rumours that someone might be gay without a source is a violation of WP:BLP, even if that page isn't a bio. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need a source that says that Oprah has officially come out. Second, you need a source that says it was being parodied. Otherwise, adding rumours like that could lead to libel claims. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do need a source. Besides, whether or not it was parodying any rumours is up to interpretation. Thus, it's Original research. This is Wikipedia and you have to follow policies. You can't just go around saying what you can and can't do. And, there are 400 episode pages so we can't police every single one of them. Point out other rumours and I'll remove them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference though. None of them violate WP:BLP. And please point out a reliable source that says this, because if it's just a couple of fans/haters who say this, then it's not notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever say I liked these sections? If I had my choice, every one would look like this, but there aren't any sources. We tried removing them, but many of the fanboys refuse to let us do that, so we allow a few of the more obvious references to remain. However, what you are adding is unsourced rumours that are open to interpration and violate WP:BLP. So to answer your question, yes those things are there because they are obvious, but the Oprah thing is being removed because it violates other guidelines. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Funeral for a Fiend. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Husbands and Knives. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Patronus Charm

An article that you have been involved in editing, Patronus Charm, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winifred Burkle

Yup, the problem was there wasn't a reflist template in the article to display the reference. It should be fixed now. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Sorry, I was off getting a cup of coffee when you left the message :O), but you got it sorted. Goes to show, leaving a "Help!" message in edit summaries does work FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ark of Truth

I have reverted your edits to Ancient characters in Stargate because AoT hasn't been released yet. Using the unofficial leak is copyright infringement. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked up what the Harry Potter fans did in this situation[4], and the opinions are it is (1) copyright infringement, or is (2) lacking reliable sources to assure verifiability, or (3) the source (i.e. the movie) is reliable, but it cannot be used as a source because it is cannot be obtained legally. In any way, one should be very careful with addition of material from such sources in order to not get wikipedia in trouble. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please stay civil in your edit summaries. Your comments on Marlena Evans were unnecessary. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Dead Man's Chest Edit Summary

"Do not revert the edits. The old version uses two different tempuses. This is STUPID. I'm gonna go edit the rest of the article at a later time because there are still sections like that."

This was a little rude, seeing as we wouldn't go and revert it if it was correct. Next time, please be a real editor - and don't be sounding so inexperienced - we try to maintain a little peace on this area of the web.

Thanks. BlackPearl14 ^{Pirate Lord-ess} 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my point. I understand your idea on the "tempuses," as I agree and have noticed that someone has reverted it. I'm just saying to watch how you write your comments, because the way you write something, as rude as you did, and including words like "This is STUPID" could get you in a position where your computer, IP, and account, are blocked. BlackPearl14 ^{Pirate Lord-ess} 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isis Gee

User:PrinceGloria is a little obsessed about Isis Gee and removed negative PR. Just to let you know this is an ongoing problem and any help in rewriting the article is appreciated. Please look at the article history as I'd like to add some reviews from critics which all said she had the worst performance in polish eurovision history. Eurovisionman (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar (2009 film) -- the film causing depression and suicidal thoughts

Hello, FallenAngelII. Would you mind commenting at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#"Too real?" about your removal of this? Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, FallenAngelll, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to articles on television, film, and music. Keep up the good work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, FallenAngelII. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, FallenAngelII. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, FallenAngelII. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited This Is My Life (Anna Bergendahl song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]